House Impeachment Threatens Freedom of Speech

So long as your lie does not harm someone or place someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, the 1st protects your right to do so.
Full Stop.

 

Because libel and slander bring harm to those being libeled and slandered.

 

It absolutely does. You have a constitutional right to speak out against the government.

All I said is that the 1st amendment does not protect against lying.

 

It does to an extent , because it would be easy to abuse such prohibitions by calling anything a lie knowing it may be difficult to prove. This would lead to the practical loss of your free speech. What it doesn't protect you from, is facing the civil repercussions of those lies. In other words, you can lie without repercussions from government, but the first amendment limits the power of government. It doesn't limit the power of other citizens to sue you for damages caused by your lies.

 

Utter nonsense. Self serving pablum for the small minded Trump hater. The assault such as it was began before Trump finished speaking. It was planned on Facebook and twitter, not parler. The pipe bombs were planted well before either and as we have no idea who killed the capitol cop we have no idea who made the pipe bombs and therefore what their political under pinnings were.

 

So then as I said if you speak out against the government and the government deems it to be a lie without regard to whether or not it is a lie then the government will still go after you regardless.

 

Which is all but impossible to do since the events were planned weeks before hand and Trump was not involved with that planning.

 

Well, if he was, that would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But how do you know he was not? There is some indication that it may have been planned in mid December, following the certification of the electoral vote count in the States.

 

Is There a Free Speech Defense to an Impeachment?

"At least some of the speech included in this article of impeachment would be constitutionally protected under the First Amendment if said by a private citizen. Some scholars have argued that, as a consequence, this speech cannot be a constitutionally valid foundation for a House impeachment or a Senate conviction, and that the president has a reasonable legal defense in his impeachment trial that his alleged actions were protected under the First Amendment. Even if senators are inclined to acquit the president, they should forcefully reject this line of defense.

The House can impeach and the Senate can convict an officer for engaging in lawful conduct. The constitutional impeachment standard of high crimes and misdemeanors is not limited to criminal conduct under ordinary criminal statutes—though many ordinary criminal acts, if committed by a federal officer, may be impeachable. The impeachment power is given to Congress to address myriad cases of noncriminal, political misconduct. The fact that an action is lawful is no defense to impeachment and conviction in the Senate."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/there-free-speech-defense-impeachment

It is indeed sad to see Dershowitz's and Giuliani's association with the Orange Fraud turn them in to attention seeking hacks.

 

Hmmm...more people who didn't know it was time for them to retire. Money and fame are hard to give up.

 

"The Supreme Court understands the First Amendment to put severe limits on what speech can be prosecuted for inciting a riot or encouraging seditious activity, and with good reason. But the Senate need not question those First Amendment protections against criminal prosecutions in order to convict the president of impeachable offenses."

 

61falcon is right. A President's oath of office is justification for holding him to a higher standard. Two broad actions of Trump led to the insurrection: 1) two months of angrily asserting the falsehood that he'd won the election; 2) inviting supporters to Washington on Jan 6 under the impression they could do something to change the result. Had Trump done neither of these, there would have been no insurrection.

These actions may not fit the criminal statutes for incitement, but there's no question that he bears moral responsibility - and this constitutes a "crime" in the sense the founding fathers intended. Their term, High Crimes & Misdemeanors absolutely doesn't refer to violations of statutes (there WERE none when the Constitution was ratified), so the "crimes" need not fit criminal statutes. Furthermore, an impeachment and trial is not a criminal proceeding; the Constitution permits criminal prosecution of an impeached/removed office holder.

 

"An attack on Society" - this is your big finale ? - that we should classify anything that represents an "Attack on Society" as Terrorism

The question is not of punishing crime - as I am not claiming rioters should not be punished.

The "Rule of Law" question we are supposed to be asking is whether or not the punishment fits the crime.

Do you not agree ? - and if so - justify your claim that anything that can be construed as an "Attack on Society" should be punished as "Terrorism"

Help my brain understand how people can be so unaware of the consequences of their actions ?

 

Same pablum different verse, guilt by false assertion and false association.

 

And don't forget, that Trump sat there and watched the violence unfold, and did nothing for hours.

1:11 pm, Trump finished his speech.

2:10 pm, Police radio the Capitol has been breeched and lockdown ensues.

2:24 pm, Trump tweets "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done ..." No mention of "peace".

2:44 pm, rioter is shot entering a restricted area. Still no tweet from Trump except for the one criticizing Pence.

4:17 pm, Trump finally tweets a video telling rioters they, "are very special" and still claiming the election was stolen, but
for rioters to go home in peace.

Trump watched, and people died. He never cared. He doesn't care now. He made no effort to stop the violence
for two hours because he thought it might help him. It was only when he realized that it was a PR nightmare that
he took action. End of story.

 

LOL!
Op-Eds are fun!

 

Most of the right wing media, talk radio and fox fake news are proof of that.
Didn't fox go to court and win claiming they had the right to lie on air?

 

If impeachment is reduced to this low threshold, then it no longer is a punitive penalty for wrongdoing and instead just becomes another political tool of political warfare. And if the Republicans have a new house majority in 2022, they may well be inclined to use it. That's the thing with gulags and political imprisonments and censorship: The other side can do it too, often without any reservation since they were targeted first.

 

Being the motivating force behind an insurrectionist riot intent on blocking certification of a presidential election is a low threshold?

 

Well, welcome to wannabe authoritarians losing. They do not respect anyone's rights but their own and they are arguing the clearly absurd, by claiming that the President has LESS inherent rights than the rest of us, doing violence not only to common sense, but to "inherent".

Their head in a bucket claims. First, the trial memorandum states that:

"the First Amendment does not apply at all to an impeachment proceeding."​

The First Amendment Arguments in the House of Representatives’ Managers’ Trial Memorandum.

While absurd, it concedes that Trump's first amendment rights are being violated. If they were not aware of this, they would have to try to explain it away. Further, they cite precedent when it's convenient, ignore it when it isn't. In 1868 Johnson impeachment many Senators argued that an impeachment article fouled the First Amendment.

So after several pages of that absurd argument, they mount a second claim that the First Amendment applies differently to the President. Specifically, in a footnote, the House argues that the President stands in the same position as a civil servant, see Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (196.

This is a major league screw up as many courts have held that First Amendment challenges by elected officials are not governed by Pickering. In fact, in Bond v. Floyd, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prevented the Georgia legislature from refusing to seat Julian Bond, based on speeches he had made criticizing the Vietnam War and the federal government generally. Similarly, Congress pursuing impeachment based on constitutionally protected free speech is engaging in impermissible viewpoint discrimination. The Brandenburg test is dispositive when evaluating the constitutionality or lawfulness of speech-related allegations of wrongdoing.

Third, after the House Manager's trial memorandum tries to apply a standard claiming the President is judged by the standard of a civil servant rather than elected official, they then analogize the President to senior appointed officers citing Branti v. Finkel (1980). The Rockland County Public Defender—a Democrat—who was appointed by the County Legislature wanted to dump two assistant public defenders because they were Republicans. Aaron Finkel and Alan Tabakman had worked for the office for several years, and served at the "pleasure" of the County Public Defender. The Supreme Court ruled for Finkel and Tabakman based on the First Amendment. The Court did not rely on Pickering as these at-will public defenders were not analogous to civil servants.

The President is an elected official not an appointed civil servant. The President is not even a senior appointed federal officer. The President is not a cabinet member, who works for a superior—other than The People who act through elections. The President is not a GS-15 who can be disciplined for speaking at a political rally. Treating the President as an appointed officer or a civil servant would eliminate the President's ability to be a politician and party leader. The elected President is not even subject to the Hatch Act. He is expected to engage in partisan speech. The President enjoys the full spectrum of free speech rights.

Fourth, the absurd trial memorandum, doing violence to the doctrine of Separation of Power, asserts that the House and Senate stand as the superior over the President, in the same fashion that the President stands as the superior over a cabinet member. In a passage they would be ashamed of, if only they had the brains:

The morons even assert in a footnote that "impeachment [is] fundamentally an employment action against a public official." These statements reaffirm the House's deeply flawed position that Congress is the President's superior. The President is not an employee of Congress. Where these dumb fks ever got that concept and placed it in the official record will be a point marveled on for it's absurdity for ages to come.

Congress is not the superior to the President. They are both elected. They both make policy, within the confines of complying with the legal system. They are both authorized in different ways to control the government-as-employer. Congress does not stand in the role of the employer vis-a-vis the President. The employer of BOTH the President and Congress are The People. The Constitution only empowers Congress to remove the President if specific legal standards are satisfied. The President is not an at-will employee.

Fifth, the Manager's trial court brief shows some awareness of the absurdity of their first four arguments and adds another that claims that even if Brandenburg is the relevant standard, the President's speech is still not protected, however, Brandenburg's imminence requirement is the relevant standard and Trump's January 6 speech is protected speech. The House Nutburgers do not even try to show that the January 6 speech would lead to "imminent lawless action" as plainly it is impossible to do so. The memorandum simply ends with a conclusory statement that Trump's speech "plainly satisfies that standard."

 

No, citing impeachment for 'legal, lawful actions' as the article you pointed out stated is a low threshold.

 

Consider the legal context for Trump's actions and inactions:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection (link)
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Trump's defense team will argue that his Jan 6 speech was an exercise of free speech, and that he did not specifically tell his supporters to engage in insurrection. Even if that defense is accepted, the timeline you related shows he is guilty of giving aid and comfort to the insurrection.

 

Does the President not have a greater responsibility than the rest of us? Is the oath of office mere theater?

Setting that aside, the real difference between a President and everyone else is that he is subject to the Constitutional rules of impeachment. Impeachment and trial are not criminal proceedings. If the Senate were to convict him, this would not send him to jail - it would only result in him being ineligible to again run for office. Of course, he COULD still be tried in criminal court, and then he'd be treated the same as anyone else.

 

You are going to argue that the President, simply by virtue of being elected, is stripped of the basic civil rights that the rest of us enjoy? That's a silly argument, even if Congress makes it. They have certainly never made and applied that argument to themselves!

Fake News. Many in both the Judiciary and the Executive Branch are subject to the "rules of impeachment" and your phrase structure captures an important point, there are rules!

There are FOUR criteria spelled out in the Constitution of Impeachment, and all FOUR are crimes. You are only making this argument because you know full well that Trump committed no crime. The fact that you are even making this argument should sober you.

No it wouldn't. Disqualification follows removal, and he cannot be removed because he no longer holds office. Moreover, disqualification only applies to appointed officers, not elected officers. Appointed officers must be confirmed by the Senate. No one needs the permission of the Senate to run for office. Moreover, it's a moot argument as the Senate will not convict Trump nor attempt to disqualify him.

Yes, the charges would be summarily dismissed as constitutionally protected free speech.

Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment, he wasn't hounded by a crazed Speaker after he left office. And Trump didn't even resign. The crazed Speaker deliberately held the article until Trump's term constitutionally ended, before she transmitted them the 73 feet from her door to the Senate Majority Leader that offices in the same building.

These clowns have so much to do besides work for the American People.

 

So charge him with cowardice and doofism . Unbelievable the kinds of obscene legal precedent I am hearing. Go read my 3 posts to Stone for more of this legal obscenity .. just in case you had similar arguments.